You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   275-299   300-324   325-332      
 
Author Message
25 new of 332 responses total.
edina
response 150 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 10 18:41 UTC 2003

Oh yeah.  First off, "blimped out" might not be the most inappropriate thing
ever said, but it might be close.  Secondly, you're designed to carry at lest
130 lbs.  Jesus.
mynxcat
response 151 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 10 19:38 UTC 2003

That's what I thought. I'd be positively anorexic at 110 lbs. I don't 
think that's a very healthy weight for me. I'm not petite, not by a 
long shot anyways.

Apart from trying to lose weight, I've also been trying to make 
healthier choices when presented with food. Like today's going away 
lunch for a colleague. Lone Star Steakhouse was the venue of choice. 
Not the healthiest of places. I had grilled chicken with steamed 
veggies. While probably not being very low-calorie or low-fat, it was 
definitely the healthiest thing on the menu. This is a far cry from 
the day I would have chosen the cheeseburger with mushrooms and steak 
fries.

Keesan's comment about my diet being low-fibre with low-cal fillers 
set me thinking. I don't think I've really made that many substitutes 
that would be termed "Low-cal fillers" I've been watching the kind of 
foods I've been having, and trying to keep the foods healthy over all. 
I don't post everything I eat on a daily basis. Not here, anyhow, but 
I have gone over the list of foods I've eaten over the past two weeks, 
and fitday shows that it's pretty well balanced. Sure I've substituted 
low-fat margarine (which by the way tastes "lighter" than butter, 
seems to melt faster)which may be a not so very appropriate substition 
when I can have fruit preserves (too sweet), but I like the taste of 
butter, and low-fat margarine comes close.
edina
response 152 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 10 20:12 UTC 2003

Grilled chicken and steamed veggies is a great chooice.  Loaded in protein
and fiber.  As for going with low-fat margerine over butter, I've noticed a
trend in Cooking Light magazine - they are back to using butter.  It's better
for you (in small amounts, just like margerine should be), as it's more
natural.
mynxcat
response 153 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 10 20:49 UTC 2003

Small amounts is the key. I LOVE butter. Tend to put more on my toast 
than I should. Margarine it will be till I get down to my desired 
weight.
jaklumen
response 154 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 10 22:18 UTC 2003

Someday I will figure out how to beat the cheat that is lunch.
keesan
response 155 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 11 00:16 UTC 2003

Pack lunch.
tsty
response 156 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 11 03:20 UTC 2003

????????????? 5'7" ?????????????? from teh perspective of teh pics
i would not have thoguth above 5'2", tops. --oops-- sorry? i apologize.
mynxcat
response 157 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 11 18:05 UTC 2003

Again, which pictures are you talking about? I'm defiitely 5'6.5" at least.
So 156 lbs is hardly "blimping out"
keesan
response 158 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 11 19:25 UTC 2003

The weight tables for me (5 feet 5.5") if I had 'big frame' say up to 150 is
normal, or down to about 120.  
tsty
response 159 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 12 08:40 UTC 2003

whatever the first pics were .. maybe not 'published' but avaiablle
upon request. 
  
ok, 5'7'' and 150-ish is JustFine (tm).
mynxcat
response 160 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 13 12:47 UTC 2003

First pictures were published. They are available upon request to very few
people. And first pics were head-shots. You cldn't guess my height from them.

Saturday, we decided to treat ourselves. After 2 weeks of choosing healthy,
Saturday was splurge day. After half a packet of guacamole chips, we had
dinner at the Martini Bar. Brusschetta, Penne Pasta with Shrimp, and the
crowning glory of the evening - Tiramisu. I think the splurge was well worth
it.

Finally bought egg-beaters, and soy milk. Soy milk has a slightly funny taste,
but I can easily get used to it. 
lynne
response 161 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 13 13:11 UTC 2003

Why soy milk?  Is it lower cal or lower carb?
edina
response 162 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 13 14:09 UTC 2003

It's loaded in protein.  I can't get used to the taste, and God knows, I've
tried.
keesan
response 163 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 13 15:26 UTC 2003

Soy milk has no cholesterol.  It does have fat and the commercial soy milks
also add sugar and flavoring.  They gave me some in the hospital but I
switched to no-sugar milk instead.  It did taste odd due to the sugar and
vanilla.  The unflavored unsweetened stuff tastes like beans.
happyboy
response 164 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 13 15:49 UTC 2003

egg beaters are ok, soy milk tastes like dirty sugar water.

soy cheese, soy yogurt, and *not-dogs* i can't stomach...
just the SMELL of not-dogs makes be wanna barf.


morningstar burgers, sassidge, and worthington fri-pats,
on the other hand are yummy...i like just good ol plain
tofu as well.
remmers
response 165 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 13 16:13 UTC 2003

I think that there's wide variation in flavor between different
brands of soy milk.  My favorite is Silk brand, red carton.
Full-flavored, not at all like "dirty sugar water".  I prefer
it to real milk on cereal and added to coffee.
mynxcat
response 166 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 13 16:40 UTC 2003

I think I got the Silk brand. I got it as an experiment, I've heard so much
about soy-milk, I had to try it. As I said, I could get used to it's taste,
but I doubt it will replace real milk in this household. It might, if it gels
well in "Indian" tea, but I highly doubt it. Maybe if I get sereal, I will
makel ike remmers and put it on that. However, I'm not a cereal person, so
we'll see how that goes.

Keesan will be proud to know that my refrigerator is stock fuill of fiber.
Apples, grapes, carrots, and a mango. Also som canteloupe. And mushrooms, yum.
I think today's going to be a good day for food.

Workout this morning was great. How much can you trust the machines on
calories burnt? I know it will vary somewhat depending if you're actually
working the machine, or waiting for minutes to tick byu. I discovered the
elliptical, and spent an hour on it. Total calories it says lost were about
660. I did have it on teh high incline about 50% of the time. 

edina
response 167 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 13 17:18 UTC 2003

I love the elliptical.  it makes your ass go away.
lynne
response 168 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 13 17:50 UTC 2003

Not mine.  I think I have hockey butt.
Y'know, I never quite trust the calories-burned number on the elliptical
trainer.  It always seems like much less effort than the bikes or stair-
masters, and claims 2-3x as many calories burned.  However, I still use it
 a lot when I go to the gym because I like it better.  (I have no scientific
basis for not trusting the numbers...if they're more or less accurate, that
would rock.)
keesan
response 169 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 13 22:04 UTC 2003

Keesan is definitely proud of mynxcat's refrigerator.
mynxcat
response 170 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 14 16:37 UTC 2003

 :) keesan.

I second edina's comment on the elliptical and asses. I can actually 
feel those muscles get a workout.

I think the elliptical does get your heart-rate up, but with little 
impact on your legs, or much less impact. Maybe that's why it seems 
like the effort isn't as much? I definitely sweat a lot, and I feel 
the muscles in my ass, and thighs getting worked, but unlike the cross-
trainer and the treadmill, there's little impact to the calves, which 
is good, because a lot of times I know I can do a lot more, but my 
calf-muscles feel like they're going to drop. Without having to worry 
about that, I can go for an hour on the elliptical, work up a good 
sweat, and not lose feeling in my lower-legs.
mynxcat
response 171 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 14 16:42 UTC 2003

Hmmm, I was looking at the internet, and I read that "Just a word of 
warning regarding cardio equipment and calories burnt. Many cardio 
machines if not all don't ask for your weight and tell you that you're 
burning X number of calories. The number displayed is for a person of 
average weight [Usually average is 150 pounds]. For many people the 
number of calories is overstated. " The elliptical machine I use asks 
for my weight. And even if it didn't, 150 lbs is pretty close to what 
I weigh

mynxcat
response 172 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 14 16:50 UTC 2003

And from 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/25/earlyshow/contributors/minnal
essig/main530806.shtml

Here are some activities and the number of calories they burn (for a 
150-pound person, on average): 
Stationary bike (at moderate level): 504 calories/hour 
Elliptical trainer (general): 648 calories/hour 
Stairmaster: 432 calories/hour 
Running (11.5 min/mile): 648 calories/hour 
Walking (17 min/mile): 288 calories/hour

which shows that the elliptical trainer numbers are pretty close to 
accurate. Yay!

The article also explains why interval training burns a lot of 
calories. The fat burning program on the elliptical is pretty close to 
the interval-training program, so that would explain the large number 
of calories lost.

keesan
response 173 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 14 18:38 UTC 2003

I had better be careful not to overexercise and lose weight ;)
Do you know of any exercises for making the buttocks larger so that it will
be possible to sit on a less padded chair?  Walking has not helped much.
slynne
response 174 of 332: Mark Unseen   Oct 14 19:54 UTC 2003

Keesan probably would also like the pumpkin pie I baked yesterday. I 
accidently used a can of regular pumpkin instead of the pumpkin pie 
filling. In other words, no sugar. It wasnt too bad except for that 
first bite when I was expecting something a little more sweet. 
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   275-299   300-324   325-332      
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss